Judge Sutton Channels … Me??

Sixth, the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment adds nothing new to this case. True, the Tenth Amendment reserves those powers not delegated to the National Government “to the States” and “to the people.” True also, a critical guarantee of individual liberty is structural and judicially enforceable—preserving a horizontal separation of powers among the branches of the National Government, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 957–58 (1983), and a vertical separation of powers between the National Government and the States, New York, 505 U.S. at 181. Odd though it may seem in light of American history, States’ rights sometimes are individual rights. See Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. __, No. 09-1227, slip op. at 9 (June 16, 2011). Doubt it? Go to any federal prison in the country to see how a broad conception of the commerce power has affected individual liberty through the passage of federal gun-possession and drug possession laws and sentencing mandates.

But to the extent plaintiffs mean to argue that the Tenth Amendment contains its own anti-commandeering principle applicable to individuals and to all of Congress’s enumerated powers, that is hard to square with the taxing power, which regularly commandeers individuals—in equally coercive ways—to spend money on things they may not need and to support policies they do not like. And to the extent plaintiffs mean to argue that such a principle captures (or reinstates) limitations on the meaning of “proper[ly]” “regulat[ing]” interstate “commerce,” that takes us back to the points already made about Congress’s delegated power in this area.

* * *

That brings me to the lingering intuition—shared by most Americans, I suspect—that Congress should not be able to compel citizens to buy products they do not want. If Congress can require Americans to buy medical insurance today, what of tomorrow? Could it compel individuals to buy health care itself in the form of an annual check-up or for that matter a health-club membership? Could it require computer companies to sell medical-insurance policies in the open market in order to widen the asset pool available to pay insurance claims? And if Congress can do this in the healthcare field, what of other fields of commerce and other products?

These are good questions, but there are some answers. In most respects, a mandate to purchase health insurance does not parallel these other settings or markets. Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life. Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law. And even the most powerful intuition about the meaning of the Constitution must be matched with a textual and enforceable theory of constitutional limits, and the activity/inactivity dichotomy does not work with respect to health insurance in many settings, if any of them.

The very force of the intuition also helps to undo it, as one is left to wonder why the Commerce Clause does the work of establishing this limitation. Few doubt that Congress could pass an equally coercive law under its taxing power by imposing a healthcare tax on everyone and freeing them from the tax if they purchased health insurance. If Congress may engage in the same type of compelling/conscripting/commandeering of individuals to buy products under the taxing power, is it not strange that only the broadest of congressional powers carves out a limit on this same type of regulation?

Why construe the Constitution, moreover, to place this limitation—that citizens cannot be forced to buy insurance, vegetables, cars and so on—solely in a grant of power to Congress, as opposed to due process limitations on power with respect to all American legislative bodies? Few doubt that the States may require individuals to buy medical insurance, and indeed at least two of them have. See Mass. Gen. Laws 111M § 2; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 26:15-2. The same goes for a related and familiar mandate of the States—that most adults must purchase car insurance. Yet no court has invalidated these kinds of mandates under the Due Process Clause or any other liberty-based guarantee of the Constitution. That means one of two things: either compelled purchases of medical insurance are different from compelled purchases of other goods and services, or the States, even under plaintiffs’ theory of the case, may compel purchases of insurance, vegetables, cars and so on. Sometimes an intuition is just an intuition.
—Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, June 29

Not to pat myself on the back, or anything—OK, yeah, I’m patting myself on the back, or something—but my last two or three posts here turned out to be spot-on. Which sort of surprises me, since I just analyze this stuff as a hobby. It’s gratifying.

But even more gratifying—and, I think, even more important than the rest of that excerpt—is the deconstruction of the claim by the far-right liberty-means-states-rights crowd, led these days by Ginni and Clarence Thomas, about the meaning of the term “liberty,” a word those folks have co-opted as their logo (have they copyrighted it yet?). They treat “liberty” largely not as an end—actual freedom—but instead as a means, as a process. According to them, so that, what matters is not the (literal) loss of, or the restriction of, liberty but rather whether it is the federal government or instead a state or local government that is limiting the freedom. With a few carefully selected exceptions, such as gun-ownership rights, all economic rights (especially property rights), and the free exercise of religion, states are, in their view, entitled to limit individuals’ freedom (or freedoms) at will—all in the name of “liberty.”

Sutton was a leading light in the conservative legal movement in the ‘90s. He served as a law clerk to Scalia for a year in the early ‘90s, and was an active member of the rightwing Federalist Society. Bush appointed him to the appellate bench in 2003. But as a judge, he’s played more the role of a skilled legal analyst and actual judge rather than a robot ideologue like, say, Samuel Alito. It was clear from the reports I read about the oral argument in the ACA case on June 1 that he was the swing vote on that panel.

I dearly hope that his opinion will spark, finally, a serious questioning by at least one or two of the federalist/state’s-rights ideologues on the Supreme Court of the logic of their states-have-the-right-to-trample-individual-rights-and-freedoms-in-the-name-of-liberty mantra.

As for the ultimate effect of his opinion on the outcome of the ACA litigation in the Supreme Court, I think that the fineness—the precision and logic—of the opinion will make it harder, as a practical matter, for a majority of justices to disagree with or ignore it.

Postscript regarding Paul Clement

In his May 8 article about Wednesday’s oral argument in the 11th Circuit in the ACA case in which Paul Clement is representing 26 states in challenging the constitutionality of the statute, New York Times reporter Kevin Sack wrote that those states are paying Clement $250,000 to handle the appeal in that court and eventually in the Supreme Court.

That’s a stunning amount, even though the amount each state will pay is relatively small. These are two appeals in a single case that involves, entirely, arguments of law. There is no trial transcript, nor trial-court orders on motions, nor volumes of business records—the things that usually raise appellate legal fees to astronomical heights. And the legal arguments are the standard ones being discussed ad nauseam in legal circles. Clement’s hourly fee on this will turn out to be something close to $1,000, I’d bet.

Maybe lines like, “It boils down to the question of whether the federal government can compel people into commerce to better regulate the individual,” as he told the panel on Wednesday, makes this guy worth his price. But if so, it’s only because the judges will assume that since he’s Paul Clement rather than, say, another lawyer, that line makes sense.

Ah! It’s not about regulating markets, after all! It’s about regulating the individual!

ATLANTA — In perhaps the weightiest of the dozens of challenges to the Obama health care law, a panel of appellate judges grappled Wednesday with the essential quandary of the case: if the federal government can require Americans to buy medical insurance, what constitutional limit would prevent it from mandating all manner of purchases and activities?
—Kevin Sack, New York Times, Jun. 8

In my last post, “Markets and the ACA: Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold the ACA,” I wrote:

[Santa Clara law prof. and ACA-litigation blogger Brad Joondeph is] right (see my post below), but only if, as he says earlier, the market for health insurance is defined so narrowly that health insurance is viewed as a commodity, a product, independent of the product’s purpose and effect. And then, the constitutional issue would not, I think, be whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause, aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate the health insurance market, but instead whether this violates some other constitutional limitation. You know: the slippery-slope-to-government-compelled-consumption-of-broccoli argument.

Turns out I was onto something. From reports I’ve read about the oral argument on Wednesday, it looks to me like that appellate panel will decide the case not on the basis of the limits of the Commerce Clause but instead on a more general civil liberties ground. They may cloak it as a Commerce Clause issue—and certainly that is what Paul Clement, the attorney representing the 26 states wants the court to do—but, really, given the questioning and comments from the swing judge on that appellate panel, and therefore the basis on which that panel will decide the case, this would be an improper conflation of Commerce Clause issues and what is known as “substantive due process” issues. And I think, ultimately, it is the substantive due process question on which the Supreme Court will decide the case. This is so even though conservative legal types detest the very concept of substantive due process.

Substantive due process is a doctrine of constitutional law that holds that there are limits, inherent within the Constitution, to the extent to which the government can interfere with basic personal choices, irrespective of how much procedural due process that individual is accorded. It’s a concept completely independent of procedural due process—the right to due process of law before the courts can strip you of life, liberty or property.

Procedural due process is all about the limits of what courts can do. Substantive due process, by contrast, is almost always about the limits of what a legislature can do. The doctrine holds that there are some personal choices that are inviolate under the Constitution. It is the much-ridiculed-by-rightwingers legal principal on which Roe v. Wade was based. Roe v. Wade, for its part, was based on a 1965 Supreme Court case called Giswold v. Connecticut, which created the substantive-due-process right of individuals to make deeply personal decisions for themselves and struck down as an unconstitutional violation of that privacy right a state statute that prohibited the use of contraceptives. And it is the principal on which in an eloquent 2003 opinion, Lawrence v. Texas, by Justice Kennedy, the Court struck down Texas’s anti-sodomy criminal statute.

Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented in Lawrence on the ground that, in their view, there is no such substantive-due-process right—no privacy right concerning intimate personal decisions—in the Constitution. Scalia and Thomas might change their minds, though, but only about the intimate decision not to buy health insurance, especially because that right is just too similar to the intimate right not to eat broccoli.

The 11th Circuit panel members are Joel Dubina, a conservative Reagan appointee to the district (trial-court level) court and a G.H.W. Bush appointee to the appellate court, whose daughter is a freshman Alabama congresswoman who campaigned on a promise to try to repeal the ACA; Frank (female, despite her name) Hull, a moderate Clinton appointee; and Stanley Marcus, a moderate-to-conservative G.H.W. Bush appointee to the district court and Clinton appointee to the appellate court.

According to one report I read, Marcus early in the hearing said he viewed the central issue in the case—the constitutionality of the individual-mandate provision—as less a Commerce Clause issue than a civil liberties issue: Does the mandate violate the civil liberties of individuals by requiring them to obtain healthcare insurance? That’s a different question, and a broader one, I think, then whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause, aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to mandate the purchase of healthcare insurance by those who can afford to buy it. Congress may have that authority under the Commerce Clause, but the legislation still might be unconstitutional if it violates another provision of the Constitution, here presumably the substantive due process right to be compelled to buy something. Presumably, because no one, least of all Clement, used the term “substantive due process right”. But he sure the words “compel,” “liberty” and “individual.” Early and quite often:

“The Commerce Clause only gives Congress the power to regulate, not to compel.” …

“It boils down to the question of whether the federal government can compel people into commerce to better regulate the individual.” …

“In 220 years, Congress never saw fit to use this power, to compel a person to engage in commerce.” …

“The whole reason we do this is to protect individual liberty.” …

When Hull said she believed the decision not to buy insurance involved some “economic activity” that impacts the healthcare market (and that therefore, under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Commerce Clause powers, Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause, coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate), Clement reportedly responded that, despite this, Congress has no constitutional authority to force people to act to buy coverage.

Clement attempts to thread a needle.

In 2005, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that under the Commerce Clause, aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has the power to prohibit an individual from growing marihuana, not for sale, much less for sale in interstate commerce but instead for his personal use, because this effects the interstate market for marijuana. Only O’Connor and Thomas dissented. The challengers to the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual-mandate provision have focused on the “compel” part; sure, the Congress can prohibit activity something under the Commerce Clause, but it can’t compel activity under the Commerce Clause. But once you acknowledge that the failure to obtain health insurance impacts the interstate market for healthcare by directly impacting who pays the uninsureds’ emergency medical costs, you’ve pretty much conceded—logically, at least—that the Commerce Clause, assisted by the Necessary and Proper Clause, allows Congress to regulate this, irrespective of whether it does this by compelling the purchase of insurance or instead in some other way.

This is true whether the acknowledger is the lawyer for the challengers to the constitutionality of the law or instead the judges hearing the case.

All three of the judges on that panel acknowledged the obvious: that the failure to obtain health insurance impacts the interstate market for healthcare by directly impacting who pays the uninsureds’ emergency medical costs. And Clement didn’t deny it. So much for, “It boils down to the question of whether the federal government can compel people into commerce to better regulate the individual.” It boils down to that only if the federal government isn’t compelling people into commerce also to better regulate the healthcare-coverage market. Most laws, federal as well as state and local ones—including the federal one at issue in Raich—regulate the individual. Whether they better regulate the individual or not.

Clement understands this, of course, but also recognizes the need for a straw to grasp at other than the Commerce Clause one. Thus the civil liberties straw, which the judges themselves offered the statute’s challengers even before Clement (who argued after the federal government’s lawyer, acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, did) began his argument:

Marcus: “If they could compel this, what purchase could they not compel?” …

Dubina: “I can't find any case like this. If we uphold this, are there any limits [on the power of the federal government]? …

Marcus: "I can't find any case [in which the courts upheld the constitutionality of] telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market.... Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"

Well, no, not precisely. But there are Supreme Court cases that upheld what, for civil liberties purposes, amounts to the same thing. They’re the cases that upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and the Medicare Act by allowing the government to compel contributions to these separate funds, which are not part of the general tax revenue fund (OK, in theory, anyway), for the sole purpose of insuring a retirement income and health insurance for those over age 65. True, the specific “enumerated” Constitutional authority Congress used to enact those laws was the taxing power, not the commerce-regulation power. But that matters only if the commerce-regulation power isn’t broad enough to reach this. If it is—and under Supreme Court precedent, it is, if the failure to have health insurance significantly impacts the healthcare market, which it does—then this distinction is without a difference. You know. A meaningful (or as lawyers say, a material) difference.

In questioning Katyal, the judges were asking for a so-called “limiting principle,” a logical line beyond which federal regulatory authority cannot go. But if the issue is individual liberty, is it really logical to have that line depend on whether the compelled payment is for a product in the open market rather than for a similar product issued by the government? Isn’t the civil liberties issue really what the goal and effect are? That’s certainly the issue in most civil-liberties challenge to the constitutionality of a statute. Why isn’t it, here?

Blowing away the smokescreen erected by the focus on the individual-mandate provision’s use of private insurance—and isn’t it just a smokescreen, really?—why does this infringe on liberty more than the Social Security and Medicare taxes do?

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate, including the power to compel, without infringing on civil liberties, if what Congress is compelling is what it could compel through its taxing power, without infringing on civil liberties. Congress couldn’t (to use the conservatives’ preferred example) compel Americans, via the tax code, to eat broccoli. Or to buy it. That pretty clearly would violate substantive due process rights, a.k.a. individual liberty rights, even if under the taxing power Congress otherwise would have that authority. But Congress could, for example, extend Medicare to all Americans and amend the Medicare tax law to pay for it, without violating the Constitution’s individual-liberty guarantees.

That’s the limiting principle. At least it should be.

The OTHER major issue in today’s ACA appellate argument: Medicaid changes

In the ACA case being argued today in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs are 26 states, one business organization, and at least two individuals. This is the case in which the trial-level judge, Roger Vinson, held the entire ACA unconstitutional on the basis that, he ruled, the mandate provision is unconstitutional because it mandates “activity” and penalizes for “inactivity.”

In my posts last week, I discussed ad nauseam the issue of legal “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the mandate provision, and said that in the two cases argued in the 4th Circuit last month, and the one argued in the 6th Circuit on June 1, there were big questions about whether the plaintiffs in those cases had standing regarding the mandate issue. In one of the two 4th Circuit, a state, Virginia, was the plaintiff, but in that case, Virginia challenged only the mandate provision. I said that since Virginia is not subject to the mandate to buy health insurance for itself, it’s likely that the 4th Circuit will dismiss that lawsuit, holding that Virginia lacks standing to make the claim. To have “standing,” you have to have a “particularized” (i.e., a concrete, reasonably direct) injury from the act (here, the legislation) at issue.

In the case being argued today, State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of HHS, the plaintiffs are 26 states, a business group, and at least two individuals. Unlike Virginia in the 4th Circuit case, these 26 states are challenging the ACA’s constitutionality on an issue entirely unrelated to the mandate provision: the provisions in the ACA that significantly alter Medicaid. The states are claiming that those changes amount to an unconstitutional “commandeering” of state policy, via the Medicaid Act as amended by the ACA.

The argument strikes me as absurd. Santa Clara law prof. Brad Joohdeph, who has a blog dedicated entirely to the ACA litigation, has an article-length post today that details and then deconstructs the state’s arguments. His conclusion: that some of the arguments aren’t complete nonsense but that they would require such dramatic and far-reaching alterations to constitutional law that they’re unlikely to succeed in any court, including the Supreme one.

My conclusion: the arguments are nonsense.

‘Markets’ and the ACA: Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold the ACA

In my post last week about the activity/inactivity canard on which the challengers to the constitutionality of the ACA claim, I wrote:

In his [blog] post, [high-profile rightwing law professor Randy] Barnett pointed out something that was not in the other reports I’d read about [last month’s oral arguments in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals]: that in a lengthy exchange with [acting Solicitor General Neal] Katyal, [Judge Diana Gribbon] Motz indicated that she buys the activity/non-activity distinction, because she believes the definition of the word “regulate” means “regulate activity.” She kept insisting that if the failure to buy health insurance is inactivity rather than activity, then, under her understanding of the definition of the word “regulate,” Congress couldn’t regulate it.

Katyal flubbed the response to this. Partly. He noted the Supreme Court’s most recent relevant Commerce Clause/Necessary and Proper Clause decision, Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 opinion that held that the federal statute enacted under the Commerce Clause powers that criminalizes the growing and use of marijuana applies even to homegrown marijuana that is not sold even intrastate, much less in interstate commerce, and that is just for the personal use of the grower. The rationale: that even those actions impact the interstate market for marijuana. Since the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate markets, Congress can, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, regulate things that otherwise cannot be regulated under the Commerce power if those things impact the interstate market.

Motz, though, missed the point. Growing marijuana is an activity, she pointed out, so how is Raich relevant to whether Congress can, under the Commerce Clause together with the Necessary and Proper Clause, regulate inactivity, she wanted to know? Well, um, maybe that what’s relevant isn’t the particular reason why the Commerce Clause alone isn’t enough and must be aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, but instead that if something—whether activity only within a state’s boundary, or instead inactivity, or instead whatever—impacts a market that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate, then Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it as necessary and proper under the Commerce Clause.

Katyal apparently was too dumbfounded to explain this.

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power, in the Constitution’s precise words, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” It’s one of the “enumerated,” or specified, powers that the Constitution gives Congress, and which the Necessary and Proper Clause augments.

Last Thursday, Santa Clara U. law professor Brad Joondeph, who has a blog called “aca litigation blog,” wrote trenchantly as the opening paragraph of a lengthy post titled “The regulated activity”:

Much ink has been spilled over whether Congress--using its commerce power alone, or its commerce power in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause--has the authority to regulate "inactivity." But there is a logically prior question--a question that is often quite tricky in enumerated powers cases--that must be resolved before reaching the inactivity issue. Namely, one has to define exactly what conduct Congress is regulating in the challenged provision.

[A] critical question that every judge must confront (or at least every judge reaching the merits) is whether the minimum coverage provision (a) regulates conduct in the health insurance market (as the challengers contend), or (b) regulates conduct in the health care services market (as the United States maintains).

In a direct and immediate sense, of course, the individual mandate regulates behavior in the insurance market. But one can easily argue (as with §4306 above) that what it really regulates is the payment for services in the health care service market. Sure, the provision, when examined in isolation, only directly concerns the purchase of health insurance. But the broader scheme, taken as a whole, shows that what Congress was actually regulating--of which the individual mandate is only a part--is the financing of health care services. Congress logically cared whether people carry health coverage not for its own sake, but due to its implications for the financing of services in the health care market, the ultimate object of its regulation.

So which is it? Which market does the minimum coverage provision actually regulate?

The larger point, he says, is that

the relevant “regulated activity”—or, phrased differently, the relevant regulated market—is quite open to debate [and that the] fact that the challenged provision only regulates a particular activity directly (… the decision whether to acquire health insurance in the case of the ACA) does not answer the question. The regulated activity or market, for purposes of evaluating whether the challenged provision is within Congress's enumerated powers, may well be different than the conduct that the provision directly governs. Answering the critical question is not as simple as examining the empirical realities of the challenged provision by itself.

He’s spot-on. But I think it would be profoundly disingenuous for any judge to say that the relevant market is simply the health insurance market. The purpose and the effect of the ACA, including the mandate provision, clearly is to regulate the method by which healthcare is funded in this country.

Joondeph ends his post by saying that the distinction between regulation of the market for health insurance and regulation of the market for healthcare is “obviously of enormous importance.” He writes:

For if the relevant market is only that for health insurance, the minimum coverage requirement looks truly unprecedented (and constitutionally problematic). But if the relevant market is that for health care services, then what Congress is regulating is a market in which virtually every American activelyparticipates--and the minimum coverage provision is merely regulating the commercial terms on which thatactive participation occurs. And this framing, of course, makes it seem well within Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce.

He’s right, but only if, as he says earlier, the market for health insurance is defined so narrowly that health insurance is viewed as a commodity, a product, independent of the product’s purpose and effect. And then, the constitutional issue would not, I think, be whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause, aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate the health insurance market, but instead whether this violates some other constitutional limitation. You know: the slippery-slope-to-government-compelled-consumption-of-broccoli argument.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is unlikely, in my opinion, to say that the relevant market is health insurance rather than healthcare. That would pretty much require the majority to do what they did in Bush v. Gore: pronounce the ruling good for that case only. Which is why I think the ACA will survive the constitutional challenge. But if it doesn’t, it’s likely to be a 5-4 slippery-slope-to-government-compelled-consumption-of-broccoli ruling.

----

The most important of the ACA-case appellate arguments is tomorrow afternoon in Atlanta, at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the appeal in the case in which 26 states and one private organization are the plaintiffs, and in which the trial-level judge, Roger Vinson, held the entire ACA unconstitutional because, he said, the mandate is too essential to the entire statute to strike that provision down without also striking down the entire ACA. Paul Clement, who, it was announced today, will be representing Arizona in defending the constitutionality of the most draconian of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration-law statutes, and who is representing six Republican House members in defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, is the states’ lead attorney. (Looks like a pattern here, for Clement.)